1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in a pre-emption matter by the defendants' side; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their writ petition.
2. ' The controversy now left to be resolved is whether, Miran Bakhsh respondent/plaintiff/pre-emptor has been able to establish the ground of tenancy, on the basis of which, a decree has been passed in his favour and the petitioners have lost throughout.
3. ' Notwithstanding the fact there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners regarding the factum of tenancy at the time relevant in this case; namely, the date of the sale of the property, learned counsel raised what he thought was a point of law. Relying on section 60-A of the Punjab Tenancy Act he contended that the sale having taken place in 1982, the last tenant on the land the father of Miran Bakhsh, died in 1980. According to Section 60-A, learned counsel further contended, the "preferred" heir of Miran Bakhsh was to hold the tenancy in succession; failing which the eldest son was to become tenant on the death of Miran Bakhsh in 1980. The argument further proceeds that there was no "preferred" heir in this case and the eldest son being another brother of Miran Bakhsh, named Ghulam Rabbani, the former could not have been treated as tenant in law.
4. In so far as the facts of this case are concerned the argument is untenable. There are findings of fact with reference to Khasra Girdawari and other material that actually the land in question at the relevant time was under tenancy and cultivating possession of Miran Bakhsh. It was for the petitioners' side to have placed on record at the trial stage enough material; firstly, to show that the deceased tenant had not made a "preference" in favour of Miran Bakhsh who actually was found to be the tenant and further that in such an eventuality the elder brother had in fact become the tenant. The mere possibility of the eldest son becoming a tenant by virtue of operation of Section 60A, would not be of any use/help to the petitioners in this case.
5. ' In the light of the foregoing discussion on this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.